Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

You're speaking of morals, not ethics. For example, abortion is legal and therefore medically ethical, although many people find it personally immoral.

But there are circumstances where abortion is both immoral and unethical, so it's fair to question whether it should be legal in all possible circumstances. There are individuals who would use it in a form that could be considered murder, and yet that wouldn't prove all medical professionals who would use it responsibly are murderers (though some would claim that's the case). I think there are a lot of valid arguments against the death penalty that have been mentioned here, but I'm not inclined to believe the state only uses it to murder people in the majority of the cases. I think that may be the unfortunate truth in some (and there should be accountability in such) and in others it was a matter of the system failing in some step in the process (the redeeming evidence arrived too late, for example). The burden is on the state to ensure that innocent people are not executed, just as it has the burden of ensuring the same for troops and civilians in war. It can't bring back troops or civilians who die, and it's not likely to want to repay the resource debts which the citizens may feel it owes to them.

__________________
"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."

And, you're wrong, ethics are personal. What you think is right and wrong may not be the same as my beliefs.

You're speaking of morals, not ethics. For example, abortion is legal and therefore medically ethical, although many people find it personally immoral.

Below is the definition of ethic from Merriam-Webster. Note the use of the term "morals" in the definition. Also, show me where it says it's exclusive to a society rather than an individual. In fact, definition 2b specifically states "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group".

This is one source (by no means the only one) that draws a distinction between morals and ethics. Make of it what you will.

In any case, no big deal. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

__________________“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”